Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!convex.convex.com!thurlow From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: On the silliness of close() giving EDQUOT Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 90 00:18:06 GMT References: <1990Oct19.055913.7103@athena.mit.edu> <15480@hydra.gatech.EDU> Sender: usenet@convex.com Lines: 18 In bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >For a distributed file system it's harder because of the possibility >of multiple writing processes. But writes in NFS are synchronous, so >that's not hard, the server knows and will return the error and the >write() doesn't return until it's committed. If you shut that off for >performance gains you're on your own. write(2) is not synchronous to the process; the NFS write operation is, but they may be done later by block I/O daemon processes on your behalf at a later time. We allow synchronous writes, but that isn't what a naive process gets. #include Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com or thurlow%convex.com@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "This opinion was the only one available; I got here kind of late."